In case you've heard murmurings but have found it all very academic, here's an explainer on the latest campaign to stir things up for the Presidential primaries.
Lawrence Lessig is a law professor famous for various exploits around things like Creative Commons and Net Neutrality. More recently, he founded the Mayday PAC, whose goal was basically to destroy all SuperPACs so as to decrease the influence of money in politics; he's done some well-received TED talks on all these topics. And much more recently, he's begun exploring the possibility of a run for President on the Democratic ticket, as the first "Referendum President."
In short, this means if elected, he would pass a single bill reforming campaign finance and electoral mechanics, then promptly resign and pass the Presidency to his Veep.
Lessig has political views, but more than that he is a tinkerer with systems. He sees the way games are played, sees that they're out of balance and causing all kinds of bad behavior, and tries to step in and set the rules straight so everybody can get back to playing the way the game was intended.
Because of my previously stated views on the bad equilibrium in American electoral politics, I support Lessig's run, which will not work. You read me correctly, he will not be elected "Referendum President," though many people will earnestly tell you it's possible. Don't believe them, but just go with it.
That is because "working" as thus far defined -- that is, being elected President -- is really secondary to "working" as it's actually intended, which is raising awareness around the issue and maybe laying the groundwork for actual policy change.
I was inspired to write this post by the IAmA Thread that Lessig and his exploratory committee chair, Wikipedia [co-]founder Jimmy Wales, did on Reddit. The main thing I wish to comment on is the (reasonable, but ultimately misguided) concerns voiced by the Redditors who pointed out that Lessig's stated plan, erm, wouldn't actually really work, probably.
What Lessig is attempting is basically a weighted Xanatos Gambit with some Batman Gambit thrown in. The victory condition he espouses, where he wins, passes the Citizens Equality Act, and steps down, is exceedingly unlikely, but ultimately unnecessary; what matters is the more likely outcome that stems from his declaring such a victory condition.
Lessig does not need to get elected. Frankly, I don't think Lessig expects, or even hopes, to get elected. I think Lessig just wants people talking about the issue seriously, and unfortunately, talking about the issue on its own (i.e., the Mayday PAC) has not produced required results, because it is too peripheral to the average American's political consciousness. Therefore, what has to happen for people to see the issue is for Lessig to run, and completely front his own candidacy around the issue.
The point is that the host of people in the thread asking about the legitimacy and plausibility of his plan being enacted once in office are doing what they believe is an important service, and it's not counterproductive really, but neither is it (likely to be) relevant.
This approach threads the game theoretic needle in order to arouse political will, and that's all it has to do to be the best available option at the moment. We can deal with the rest when we get there.
Some evidence is starting to accrue, aside from Lessig's increased name recognition (he's now on the polls), that the intended shift is occurring. Not only is Trump seen as a bizarro ally to the cause, but there is speculation to the effect that electoral reform will be a central issue in the campaign.
Job done, eh? Now we'll just see if they shoot the moon.
One footnote: if you're interested in what kinds of reform platforms would ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY result in the appropriate policy changes, check out Represent.Us, which has a more local and state, grassroots approach -- even though they're maybe a little more accusatory with their #Corruption rhetoric than Lessig's gentler "don't hate the player, hate the game" message. Disclaimer: the link used gets me points on a silly but effective incentives tree on the site. Whatever, don't judge me.
A second footnote: while I support his ideas about campaign finance, I'm more jazzed he's including Ranked-Choice Voting (AKA Alternative Voting, Instant-Runoff Voting, etc.). See Sir Red Squirrel for details.
Because of my previously stated views on the bad equilibrium in American electoral politics, I support Lessig's run, which will not work. You read me correctly, he will not be elected "Referendum President," though many people will earnestly tell you it's possible. Don't believe them, but just go with it.
That is because "working" as thus far defined -- that is, being elected President -- is really secondary to "working" as it's actually intended, which is raising awareness around the issue and maybe laying the groundwork for actual policy change.
I was inspired to write this post by the IAmA Thread that Lessig and his exploratory committee chair, Wikipedia [co-]founder Jimmy Wales, did on Reddit. The main thing I wish to comment on is the (reasonable, but ultimately misguided) concerns voiced by the Redditors who pointed out that Lessig's stated plan, erm, wouldn't actually really work, probably.
What Lessig is attempting is basically a weighted Xanatos Gambit with some Batman Gambit thrown in. The victory condition he espouses, where he wins, passes the Citizens Equality Act, and steps down, is exceedingly unlikely, but ultimately unnecessary; what matters is the more likely outcome that stems from his declaring such a victory condition.
Lessig does not need to get elected. Frankly, I don't think Lessig expects, or even hopes, to get elected. I think Lessig just wants people talking about the issue seriously, and unfortunately, talking about the issue on its own (i.e., the Mayday PAC) has not produced required results, because it is too peripheral to the average American's political consciousness. Therefore, what has to happen for people to see the issue is for Lessig to run, and completely front his own candidacy around the issue.
The point is that the host of people in the thread asking about the legitimacy and plausibility of his plan being enacted once in office are doing what they believe is an important service, and it's not counterproductive really, but neither is it (likely to be) relevant.
This approach threads the game theoretic needle in order to arouse political will, and that's all it has to do to be the best available option at the moment. We can deal with the rest when we get there.
Some evidence is starting to accrue, aside from Lessig's increased name recognition (he's now on the polls), that the intended shift is occurring. Not only is Trump seen as a bizarro ally to the cause, but there is speculation to the effect that electoral reform will be a central issue in the campaign.
Job done, eh? Now we'll just see if they shoot the moon.
One footnote: if you're interested in what kinds of reform platforms would ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY result in the appropriate policy changes, check out Represent.Us, which has a more local and state, grassroots approach -- even though they're maybe a little more accusatory with their #Corruption rhetoric than Lessig's gentler "don't hate the player, hate the game" message. Disclaimer: the link used gets me points on a silly but effective incentives tree on the site. Whatever, don't judge me.
A second footnote: while I support his ideas about campaign finance, I'm more jazzed he's including Ranked-Choice Voting (AKA Alternative Voting, Instant-Runoff Voting, etc.). See Sir Red Squirrel for details.
